of all of the consoles that have been sold, none have had the type of staying power that Nintendo has. they continue to find ways to reinvent themselves, and now with the wii and the rediculous wait times to get a system, they have done a stellar job at creating a demand for their products.
i just came across an article that depicts a bright future for Nintendo.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/wii-s-future-in
-motion/1270287
do you have a wii?? what types of games do you like to play on it?? let me know your thoughts.
there has been much controversy surrounding proposition 8 in CA. i was hoping that once the voting was done, it would die down. the controversy of late has troubled me, to say the least.
before i go too far into my thoughts, i wish to make several declarations regarding my stance on this issue. i am torn by this debate because i see both sides very clearly.
1. i am a devout follower of the LDS faith. i will not go into the specifics of why, but it has been borne of much study and meditation.
2. the crux of my political thought lies in choice. i am no respecter of persons, so i believe that the right to chose a path, lifestyle, etc should be enjoyed by all, regardless of race, creed, or sexuality. i believe that this right to choose is so precious that it must be defended at all costs.
regarding proposition 8 and same sex marriage--the gay community seeks equality. they seek legitimacy and recognition for their choices. the religious community seeks to defend their beliefs. both of these are very worthy aims. the matter was put to a vote, and the religious community prevailed. now, in retrospect, which side was right?? i simeltaneously believe that both sides were right and both sides were wrong.
initially, i thought the involvement of the LDS church in this debate to be wrong. i learned what the extent of the involvement was, and i was forced to reconsider my stance on the issue. while i oppose same sex marriage politically, i oppose it morally. as a member of the LDS church, i believe that gender roles and families are of vital importance--both in society and in a religious sense. one's right to chose, however, cannot be undone, both politically and morally. the involvement of the LDS church has been nothing more than to urge its members to vote for what is right. the phone calling, the funding, the door knocking, etc, came from LDS church members, not the church itself. this is no different from the involvement by the other churches in CA. the belief held by the christian community is that marriage is ordained of God and therefore sacred in nature. the LDS church is not unique in this view.
a very real concern that has been held by the religious community is this: the same amendment that guarantees religious freedom also guarantees moral freedom. the amendment does not address, however, what happens if morality and religion juxtapose one another (usually this is a personal battle, given the subjective nature of morality, but when a moral decision is constitutionally protected, it transcends the personal vernacular and become a question of ethics--customary or popular morality). in other words, if same sex marriage is constitutionally protected, will there be legal ramifications for a church if they do not support it?? how far will this go?? will a church be forced to lose its status in the community if it does not support same sex marriage?? again, these concerns are prevelant throughout christianity, not exclusive to the LDS faith.
if there is a constitutional guarantee for same sex marriage, and churches are forced to recognize them as legitimate, it will undermine the beliefs that said church cherishes. where is the freedom of religion?? the gay community has been very ademant about overturning the amendment. after listening to the language that they have used, i believe that this has become a question of legitimacy. i believe that this will not stop until their choice in lifestyle is recognised by the religious community as valid. if this passes as a law, could this be regarded as a legislation of morals?? i also believe, after listening to the language that was used, that the gay community does not tolerate any points of view but their own. if the religious community does not endorse their lifestyle, they are regarded as bigots. they are accused of not understanding and their views are dismissed. the religious community, as a result of this, has needed to proceed with extreme caution so as not to offend anyone. some succeeded, and some failed miserably. has the gay community made efforts to understand the perspective of the religious community?? have they exercised the same caution in speaking on the issue that they have required of the religious community?? again, after listening to the language that was used, i do not believe they have.
mine is an appeal to civility. this matter was taken to the ballot, and the majority has prevailed. the tactics use by some of those who oppose the amendment could be regarded as a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
